Sir, it was the cost of doing business in the United States regardless of geographic region. Some of the loudest voices against it were the owners of the New York Central, Pennsylvania, B & O, and every other railroad. British rail was cheaper and better than what American producers were capable of turning out at the time. Tariffs effected everyone - for good or for ill.So the Protective Tariff was the cost of doing business for the South.
Indeed sir, which if true begs the question of why someone didn't import directly to Southern ports, (where the import charges are exactly the same as Northern ports), cut out the Northern 'middleman', charge slightly less than 're-imported' goods from the North, and reap a greater profit for a small increase in transportation cost?So is the argument then that Southerners paid 'tax' in the form of higher prices charged by Northern merchants due to the cost of imports?
Indeed sir, which if true begs the question of why someone didn't import directly to Southern ports, (where the import charges are exactly the same as Northern ports), cut out the Northern 'middleman', charge slightly less than 're-imported' Northern goods, and reap a greater profit for a small increase in transportation cost?
Economic Aspects Of Southern Sectionalism, 1840-1861 Russel
The Troubled World of Antebellum Banking in GeorgiaThe real problem with the northern states is the banks were extremely sound and were driving the unbacked currencies out by buying them up and redeeming them.
Credit for any internal improvements would have been difficult to obtain or extremely expensive. If the South wanted to become a supplier of the finished products or even a semi-finished products from the wealth of her raw materials, she is going to need a greatly expanded industrial infrastructure. Unless she wished to remain simply a provider of basic resources...and import much of what she needed....and credit for railroads in Texas hard to come by.
We dealt with the phony claim people were re-enslaved here: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-great-emancipator-emancipated-what.1214/page-2#post-1963972
Bet it was a great White Perspective Analysis. Wonder how the Negroes viewed it. Yankee masters sent them back to the Plantations on Contracts the Federal Government chose for them, all forced.
Another fake history claim belied by the Walker Tariff.
They were happy to be paid for their work and to be safe from being sold away from their families or having their families sold away from them.Bet it was a great White Perspective Analysis. Wonder how the Negroes viewed it. Yankee masters sent them back to the Plantations on Contracts the Federal Government chose for them, all forced.
The northern states were far ahead in education.
Not only that but by the north was favored by geography with the Great Lakes and good railroad routes.
The things the southerners may have resented were probably that the northern folks had created both a merchant and military navy, a banking system, railroads and the beginnings of an educational system.
The south in contrast had built their version of the ancient Roman Empire. Without the monumental architecture.
Apparently this 1953 book is still a good reference, thanks. (i.e according to one reviewer “…Although this book is now over 50 years old, it remains a classic and well suited for any university survey course or graduate work.” - Glen Ely), so I'm gonna find a copy and read it.I recommend reading Avery O. Craven's The Growth of Southern Nationalism 1848-1861 for a study of Southern grievances leading to secession.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|S||International sales of casemate ironclads post-war?||The Naval War||14|
|G||Photo of General Jack Casement||Period Photos & Examinations||6|
|What if the South had Made its Case for Secession in Court, Instead of on the Battlefield?||"What if..." Discussions||44|
|The Lemmon Slave Case: The Southern Quest to Nationalize Slavery||Secession, Politics, & Debates (Moderated)||7|